In a very broad sense, it can be argued that what is presently described as terrorism is very much a political and ideological thing. The frequent invocation of the concept by those powers in the control of modern-nations states seems to be predicated on the need bring about certain congruence between the political and economic realms.

It is the enduring tension between the need to establish this congruence in the larger global political economy and the attempt on the part of certain transnational forces/non-states forces to impose their old political versions that have given rise to the phenomenon of terrorism.

The word has evoked such a negative image because it has been appropriated and used by some nation-states to ensure that the activities of certain non-state forces that use violence to achieve their political objectives will be deemed illegitimate and unlawful within the present framework of international relations.

However, as we shall see, violence is not the trade mark of non-state forces alone, territorial states use it as much to attain their political objectives, but the only difference is that violence engaged by territorial states are often condoned and justified by international law, norms and values.

While violence is something that is becoming extremely distasteful to the civilised international community, however, there is no consensus as to why violence, wars and other extreme forms of conflict are bad.

If violence, suicide bombings, attacks on civilian targets and others are indeed wrong, I am sure that violence might not be in our midst; it would be a thing of the past. But then reality is very different. Violence seems to be appealing to groups, individuals and organisations in different parts of the world for a wide variety of objectives.

Dealing effectively with adversaries

For many, the use of violence, however problematic, seems to be the only way that they could publicise their problems, obtain international recognition to their plight and demands and at the same time deal effectively with their adversaries.

It is not that these groups have natural affinity towards violence, in many cases, violence has been the only way that they could deal effectively with their adversaries. Very often than not, given the difficulties associated with open confrontation with their more formidable adversaries, employment of hit-and-run tactics, guerrilla warfare, suicide bombings and destruction of selected places are adopted to ensure that the groups in conflict with territorial states obtain their necessary recognition.

It is the psychological nature of their activities, the death of innocent people and the destruction of public places that have not endeared non-states forces that use violence to achieve their ends to certain countries to the international community. However, condemnation of the activities of these groups is not universal, as they have their own respective bases of support within the global community.

In the last two decades or so, the spread of global communication, internet facilities, the use of sophisticated weapons procured from the global weapons market and the flow of funds from sympathisers have generally aided the political and armed activities of these groups.

While these groups might not be a position to pose a direct challenge to those in control of state power, their continued clandestine activities, occasional resort to terror, and the nature of publicity campaigns have the potential to create difficulties for certain nation-states.

State terrorism

As stated, the use of violence is not the sole monopoly of the so-called non-state forces, modern nation-states have the capability and means, more than those who are opposing them, to use violence.

However, there is difference. While non-state forces use of violence defies norms and rules, states have the propensity to use violence at their pleasure, often defended on the grounds of security and defence.

So in other words, the use of violence by states are often condoned as legitimate exercises necessary for the security and well-being of their respective peoples. To what extent modern nation-states can use violence to achieve particular ends, is something controversial.

Recent actions of certain states to apply extreme forms of violence to stop the activities of dissident groups have elicited very unfavourable responses from the international community. Again there is no universal condemnation, as the use of violence is very often dictated by political and ideological considerations.

State violence may be justified more easily than those used by dissident forces, but the continued use might have problems. The use of violence to stop violence might not produce the desired results, simply because the kinds of problems that modern nation state face require a political solution, a kind of negotiated settlement.

Limits to use of state power

Recent global developments indicate that there are definite limits to the use of state power. While violence might be defended on the grounds of national security and sanctity of the nation-state, continued use against dissident forces and civilians can turn world opinion against it.

States have the propensity to label dissident forces as terrorist because the latter uses violence as a weapon, but then, states are no different. Minus the legitimacy, their actions can also be labeled as terrorist in nature. Lately, the concept of state terrorism has been invoked by non-state forces to reveal that states resorting to the use of violence can be equally described as terrorist in nature.

The actions of non-state forces in seeking their political objectives through the use of violence more often than not produces certain undesirable results  it merely tells about the impact of violence.

But if non-state actors are committed to use violence to achieve their objectives, then there is necessity to ascertain the political, social, ideological and economic reasons that have forced them into this action. Such an inquiry is not meant to condone or down-play the seriousness of violence, but rather to determine the circumstances that conditions the use of violence.

The present discourse on terrorism, sad to day, is very reductionist in many respects. First, is it very descriptive in nature; while the violence of non-state forces are highlighted and condemned as terrorist, no attempt is made to take into account the nature of violence unleashed by state forces and their impact on society in general.

Second, the causal links between state and non-state violence are seldom explicated in a detailed manner. It is normally assumed that state violence is merely a consequence of non-state actions and not the other way around.

Third, why non-state forces engage in violence and why certain extreme forms are used are conveniently ignored in most analyses. Fourth, acts of violence of non-state forces are denounced, those of the territorial states are defended and legitimised on the grounds of their legality.

Tomorrow: War against terror directed at those resisting capitalism

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.